115294-feedback-what-i-would-like-to-see-changed
Content ---- ---- | |} ---- ---- | |} ---- |} | |} ---- ---- Yup, I would be fine with those changes. | |} ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- That wouldn't work. Elder gems should not be account wide because then the person with more alts will have the strongest main because they can buy things faster than others. One should only have 140 gems per week, not 280+ on one character as per your suggestion. | |} ---- Yeah that might be good for my guild, but for all other guilds I want their to be more competition with like minded players, so no. It would need a major overhaul to change all the fights to 20man with major key mechanics need removing all together, too much work for this nearly finished raid. I love 40man raiding It's really nice, the things we don't like are performance issues, constant re logging for fps, which you experience in 40 mans. If there was 2x 20mans which were both epic I would prefer this. I have the utmost faith in TT and the team that they could pull it off judging from what they have done already. Amazing job so far. | |} ---- Would you mind expanding on this thought please? Exactly how did transferring to PVE saved your guild? Simply just lack of population on PVP side? thanks. | |} ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- As an aside, how would you feel about 20-man modes of Datascape accessible alongside 40-man modes that don't reward gear anywhere near as good, or maybe even tuning a 40-man version of GA to run alongside it? I've no personal opinion on the matter, just asking. | |} ---- ---- Well, yeah, I wouldn't at all say that running a raid with less people is anywhere near as awesome on the part of the raid. I just mean that if they make sure all raids have 20 and 40 man versions, would that be quittable? I understand having the 40 man raiding removed would be grounds for it, but just as a possible alternative, is adding versions for lesser player counts (and possibly more for GA to balance out) the same? | |} ---- ---- Edited October 8, 2014 by Buiden | |} ---- This was the best thing Blizzard ever did for Naxxramas. Less than 5% of the Vanilla population got to see that content. This allowed people to see the content as it was meant to, not hide it away between attunement gates. Content with 20 people can be just as challenging (if not more so) than content with 40 people. It all depends on how they tune it. | |} ---- I'm not even bringing it up because people should be able to see it. Honestly, a lot of people wouldn't if it was just 20 man. I'm just bringing it up because of logistics. It might be easier to run 20s of both raids for a while, then switch up to 40s of both. In that scenario, you get not just a 20 man version of Datascape, but a 40 man version of GA. You double content for both sizes. | |} ---- I can agree with this, but not the gear of the content. Some people can only muster 25-30 to rotate in 20 man content and shouldn't be penalized for not being able to bring 40 people. If it was decided to make a 20 man DS alongside a 40 man, the gear should be the same. Obviously the number of drops would scale down, but players shouldn't be penalized. | |} ---- Stop dreaming. Irrationality, nostalgia and day dreaming about the old days won't put food in the table of Carbine workers nor change facts regarding the market for MMOs right now | |} ---- I'm not sure why the gear should be the same. It's very obviously more difficult to organize 40 people to raid. I'm not sure why 40 man raiding shouldn't be justly rewarded, especially if many people can't manage to field more than 25-30 people. The only argument that really makes sense as to why raid sizes should be dropped is that not enough people are making use of the content and they want to raid DS with 20 people instead of 40. Which may be fair enough as a point, but why should they then care if a guild can field a 40 man raid, clear content, and get correspondingly better gear? They did put in the extra effort, and it isn't as if the 20 man raids aren't seeing and doing the content. It's not a penalty that you don't get rewards as good as someone who's done something that's currently being proven to be much more difficult. | |} ---- True, but the 'Roster Boss' shouldn't be a criteria for which difficulty is judged. | |} ---- ---- |} | |} ---- There is a point where it is, though. It seems a little sad to say that people aren't capable of upkeeping 40 man raids. If people can't field a 40 man team, that's fine, and if it's thought that there should be a 20 man version of DS, I'm not entirely against that as a concept. However, I wouldn't see why why a guild that isn't fielding a 40 man raid should be held in exactly the same esteem as one that is. If the point is that there aren't enough people capable of upkeeping, organizing, and running a 40-man raid team, that's an argument for putting in a 20 man mode. However, the "roster boss" means a lot, specifically whether a guild can muster up enough logistical support to get and keep that many people attuned and operating. I still think 40 man raids should be an option no matter what and that the best PVE gear in the game should go to 40 man raids. I'm not really concerned with whether there is a 20 man version of DS for guilds that simply aren't capable of the content, but it also seems that it would make sense to make a 40 man version of GA, then release both tiers with the 40 man content giving out the best gear. That way, 20 man guilds can still do their content, but the people putting in enough work to fight that "roster boss" get rewarded for it. People who are truly just miffed that they'll never see DS will see DS with their smaller guild, but they'll always have incentive to try to go higher if that's what they want to do. Whatever you ascribe to the roster boss, guilds that can only field 20 players aren't doing it, guilds that can field 40 players are doing it. If a guild doesn't want to put in the effort, they can still see and do the content with their 20 man and be satisfied if that's really what they want. People who want to stand on the mountaintop and say they have no lands left to conquer by removing the 40 man raid upper deck, I just don't see why that position should be supported. There's something to be said that Datascape is developer investment that is not used, but if the idea is to make sure everyone can see it and get the best gear, there's no reason not to make it soloable and get the top end gear by yourself. It could be said that some players are simply fighting the "roster boss" of five people. Player group size determines quite a bit about difficulty. So I suppose I could see myself supporting a 20 man DS, provided there was also a 40 man GA and all subsequent raids had 20 and 40 man modes with slightly better gear going to the 40 mans. Maybe not a full tier better, I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 20 mans should be a full progression tier behind 40s, but their rewards should certainly be superior. Maybe GA 40 gear would be on par with DS 20, DS 40 a smidge above that? True BIS is in 40 DS, but nothing else is so far off that you have to grind the content to get there? At least then, it also serves a game purpose because DS 20 could effectively make your logistics easier to enter GA 40. Just spitballing there for numbers. The long and short of it is that I suppose I can see adding 20 and 40 modes for all raids and rewarding the 40s with slightly better gear to acknowledge their accomplishment. | |} ---- Fair points, I agree. I hate splitting of content into various size requirements, specifically for raiding. Never does it work that you can take 2 x 20 mans and simply make 1 group of 40 man. When people gear for a specific role in the smaller content, they generally have to fight drops among themselves just to get main spec gear. When you must now try to obtain gear for the opposite role, because DS doesn't require 4 permanent tanks, you are not only forced to play outside of your preferred role, but you must also gear for the other role. | |} ---- No, it was one of the worst things. They took something that everyone who did it looks back fondly on, and converted it into something that people gloss over in the history of WoW Raiding. Naxxaramas was ruined. And the fact that it got 5% was amazing. It was only there for one patch right before the expansion. If it was given more time, a lot more than 5% would have seen parts of it because there were tons and tons of guilds in MC, BWL, AQ40 that were still working their ways up. And a lot of people can't handle raiding with less than a certain ping, does that mean they shouldn't be able to get loot from certain raid challenges that require quick reactions which they can't do? I mean, there is a bigger argument for them getting the loot since it is something they can't control whereas how many people you recruit is largely in your hands. I wonder why people play MMO's when all they want to do is play with only a few people. It is Massively Multiplayer Online game. Not 3 people being grouped together online game. | |} ---- |} |} | |} ---- Naxxramas was implemented ~7 months prior to Burning Crusade. I still look back fondly at my brief time in 40 Naxx. No amount of revitalization, patches, nerfs, or expansions will ever change that. | |} ---- As a technologist/cooker, i can say i really often have more than 500+ omniplams, kinetic and dynamics, and even sometimes more than 3k... Same for mourningstar and octopods. | |} ---- ---- ---- Yeah, except Naxx 25 is not remembered as anything but a decrepit shrine to something that was great. It is a lesson that shows that you can't just retune 40 man content for less people and keep it the same. If you correctly utilize the fact you have 40 people, you will lose something in the translation. To put it in math terms, there is no way to completely map 40 man space into 25 or 20 man space. The biggest problem with vanilla WoW was that they left casuals to the way side, eventually throwing them a bone with 0.5 tier that was still not as good as tier 1. They could have kept WoW 40 man's but implemented better progression paths for <40 people and it would have been fine. Just like Wildstar needs to do. | |} ---- |} Thanks for the response Buiden :) | |} ---- I wonder if class balancing might be a bigger and better topic of conversation. Like, should all 40 man raids necessarily have mechanics that require about the same amount of tanks and healers. For example, if a boss is a single-tank fight, the 40 man version would require tank swapping with one other person. If a boss needs a tank and an offtank in 20 man, maybe the 40 man would thus require two main tanks swapping and two offtanks to handle adds because of some added mechanic. Maybe that would scale well? | |} ---- Oh! Just thought of something. Gathering dailies! Like, you can turn in X amount of high end plasms, wood, runes, whatever, and it spits out elder gems beyond cap. Once a day. | |} ---- Power cores and set rune fragments will soon find their way into the crafting bag. Edited October 8, 2014 by Buiden | |} ---- *cheering sounds* | |} ---- ---- Having a thicket with a lot of active neighbors will solve most of this for you. I am usually swimming in so much leather that I end up vendoring some of it because the CX is selling for at vendor price (which is below vendor price with 12% cut from CX) As to one of the OP's points I vote hell no to heirloom geir. Go play WoW if that is the system you want. You can sufficiently make yourself able to solo primes with ease just putting on crafted gear that uses the best blue core for that level range into your crafted gear. Any more overpowered than that with some kind of hand me down heirloom gear is too much. | |} ---- Yeah someone else recommended this. I put one in my house, but the world drops are still way out of whack by comparison. If I had a mine in my house and using neighbors I'd have more ore than I could vendor. Lol | |} ---- ---- 40 men raids are one of the unique Wildstar "things" ...do you wnat to make here another blizzard like raiding tunning, so every newbie and casual could access them? Hopefully devs here will not make the same mistakes as blizzard did in the past by making all players equal... if you are able to raid 40 men content you should get much better rewards than for raiding 20 men content..and 10 men raids shoudn't even exists..... also raids shoudn't be "pug-able"... simple speaking raiding should be only for "capable", "skilled" players with enough commitment and free time.... Also do not remove any attunements....this would be another biggest mistake ever... | |} ---- Unsure what will happen here, please continue providing feeback. |} Not sure what else can be said other than why?! What did Carbine gain by not allowing players on the verge of quitting to switch servers and join a guild that keeps them playing? Several guilds disbanded on different servers had players on them saying "if only we could transfer and join you we would have continued but oh well, cant be bothered rerolling /unsub"... Same can be said for faction change, many players decided they do not want to reroll and just quit, when a simple faction change could have kept them subbed to Wildstar. What is the point really? harder to level on PvP realms argument is wrong on so many levels because there is no open world PvP and if you find the occasional ganker which is rare it doesn't take long for them to move on and you can continue leveling... That is a total of 30 to 40 hours (being generous here for the slow levelers) of your game time to get to level 50 and you are restricting several end game players from enjoying the game because of these 30 hours its depressing! How about people that are currently on a break from Wildstar? Megaservers are coming before Drop 3, what if they decided to come back for Drop 3 or after WoD progression only to find themselves locked in the wrong realm? Eugenic for example moved to a PvE realm, meaning any old player that comes back in the future is going to find himself in a PvP realm and quitting right away because he cannot join his old guild mates anymore... Why?! why why why.... | |} ---- ---- I've asked this before. Got no answer. Maybe they are so hardcore that they want to resuscitate their own game in the hardcore setting. | |} ---- Praise Chua Science! Also, I second the suggestion to make as much as possible account-wide, including the housing crate. As for bank slots, you are allowing 12 characters with maxed banks and inventories. That's in the data budget. That's 12 banks and 12 inventories. Make the bank space shared and halve it (6 times what we have now, but shared across all 12 characters). Use the other 6 banks to increase inventory of all 12 characters to 150%. Same data budget but oh so much more quality of life for players. | |} ---- |} | |} ---- ---- I'm not the person who can really answer the "Why" just pass along feedback and arguments for why or why we shouldn't allow them. I think you've brought up some great points that should be taken into consideration. | |} ---- No problem then, make sure when you pass it along you say why several times with dramatic voice. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMVl-94Mqr4#t=17 | |} ---- I have dozens of tradeskill reagents over flowing into my bags and bank. To list a few: Kinetic Omni-plasm Bloodbriar Mourningstar Heartichoke Octopod Choice Meats Gourmet Poultry Exotic Bug Meat Sign of Water Sign of Earth Sign of Fire Sign of Air Sign of Water Greater Sign of Earth Greater Sign of Fire Greater Sign of Water Major Sign of Earth Major Starloom Cloth Xenocite Ore Galactium Ore Chrysalus Starshard Novacite Shadeslate Rune Fragments Eldan Rune Fragments Incritcate Rune Fragments I'm even getting close to max "Signs of Earth|Life|Logic - Eldan" as I save for the runic flux patch. I have full 16 slot bags for both my inventory AND bank plus the 18 slotter and still don't have enough room for everything. It's frustrating to have to keep bouncing back and forth to my mule characters constantly mailing myself. 250 isn't CLOSE to enough for me. If it was increased to 1000 the above list would be whittled down to just a handful of items (mostly ores, omni, and a few plants) and I would be appeased. More would be better. I'd pay serious plat to increase my tradeskill bag size. Some of the items I use to craft. Others I sell. The stuff I used to craft comes and goes and I try to keep my stock low enough to manage. The stuff I sell gathers faster than it sells. It is not uncommon for me to simply vendor stuff despite the CX value being 5-10 times vendor price. This is on Stormtalon which has a strong economy. This would be a QOL change that would make me very happy to see. | |} ---- ---- ---- Add costumes to crafting that eat up materials and we would be set ^_^ | |} ---- ---- I'm gonna hate myself for even saying this out loud it but add random costume boxes to crafting and we'll eat a bazillion mats hammering on that lever in the Skinner Box. Though I'd rather the costume recipes just eat 200 mats a pop and give me exactly what I want. | |} ---- I was thinking more reputation vendors. Such as Whitevale -- at Beloved you could buy 4-5 costume pieces that just use a core and basic ore. No stats, just flair of the region (Lopp costume?). | |} ---- We have plans to overhaul gardening at some point which at the very least would involve getting seeds completely out of your inventory. | |} ---- ---- So there is a clear delineation in gear from same armor type wearers. A warrior piece would never be confused with a engineer piece and so on. It not only keeps people from stealing gear (in theory) but it keeps gear separate between classes. | |} ---- what's this stealing theory? sorry, I'm not understanding | |} ---- Say a heavy helm drops and it has 80 brutality and 40 finesse. Because the way stats work this would be considered a Warrior piece (Brutality = AP for warriors). The warrior roles need because the engineer (the other wearer of heavy armor in the game) uses Finesse for his AP. It's an upgrade for the warrior but a downgrade for the engineer (in theory). If Brutality was AP for both heavy armor wearers, it would be an upgrade for both. Make more sense? | |} ---- Yes, it makes sense because it makes all attributes useful in some way. No need to make any of them obsolete. Devil's advocate in me says that if more than one class needs the same attribute though there would be more competition for that piece on the AH...and I wouldn't need to level one of each class or study a spreadsheet to figure out what's useful and for whom. Thanks for your reply. I don't want to hijack the thread :) so I'll go back to lurking and try to get a better handle on the differences. | |} ---- ---- YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Right now seeds take up about a third of my bank! Give them slots in the tradeskill bag or even their own bag! | |} ---- i realize "feed back noted" does not mean changes comming soon, but i just want to say as a proud owner of epic riding that this purchase did take dedication but was far easier to obtain compared to epic riding in vanilla wow(for me at least). if i may offer my own feed back? leave it be it should be a luxury, hell i wish you would lower the speed ont he dumb pigs/equivar from boxes because that severely takes away the value of me having the mount. | |} ---- ---- Please please please bring back shrooms as well. They where such a fun addition to something that is rather dull. | |} ---- What exactly is the harm of allowing crafting mats to stack to some arbitrary large number in the trade bag? It's just an integer in the DB. I have dozens of stacks of mats in my bank and it's really one of those things that just feels pointlessly annoying. | |} ---- mount speed is normalized in daggerstone afaik | |} ---- Too over powered. They'd have to completely rebalance the end game raids and rocketship house. | |} ---- All feedback is valuable and we certainly understand that yes some people did work very hard to get their epic riding skill. | |} ---- Technically speaking it isn't quite that simple. It isn't just an integer in the database because your crafting satchel is stored in a highly compressed format; this is how we get away allowing you to have so much extra inventory space because it is essentially free from a disk storage perspective. Changing stack sizes on things means changing the compression method which is work. Work costs time and effort which you can always argue could or should be spend on fixing X, Y, or Z instead. This isn't to say that it won't be something we do, it very well may be. I am just trying to give more visibility into why it isn't as simple as "change an integer", | |} ---- ---- This coming from an alt-a-holic is pretty surprising. Why if I may ask? Also do you mean for ALL mounts? I get it for things like the Strain Hover-Board, earning the plat for it is a challenge in itself but what about the Boom-Box mounts? You wouldn't come across one everyday even if you had more then enough plat to buy it from another player. | |} ---- Thank you for allowing us to have so much extra space....but take into consideration that your competition happily also allows us to have much more extra space than what you feel like allowing us to have. Its very informative that you tell us how much work it requires to actually change the stack number of an item (I didn't know, also thought it was just a number you changed). No dev company from what I know of usually goes through the process of how things are done and I like that. BUT, and this is a big but, there has been certain standards already placed by other subscription model games in which, I would think, you guys should at least meet as also a subscription game being technically in competition with them. This means that QoL stuff, like bag space, needs to be brought up to at least what the competition offers. Maybe you don't have to change the stack numbers. Maybe you need to give us more bag slots, in character and bank, so that we would still have to work for it. | |} ---- Very cool insight into how the game works, and a quite clever way to decrease the footprint of the crafting satchel. I was thinking in SQL relational dbs, and in that context my argument made sense. I read somewhere that power cores are going to be in the trade bags at some point in the future, which seems like it would also require a rework of the algorithm. Could stack size be changed on the same pass? | |} ---- ---- ---- ---- I'll make sure this is technically possible then see what the design folks think. | |} ---- ---- 5 minutes of study is not a whole lot. AP: Stalker - Brutality Warrior - Brutality Engineer - Finesse Medic - Tech Esper - Moxie Slinger - Finesse SP: Stalker - Tech Warrior - Tech Engineer - Tech Medic - Insight Esper - Insight Slinger - Insight All other stats are effectively worthless for DPS, but tanking and healing actually make use of Crit Deflect bonuses and Focus Regen and stuff like that. | |} ---- There are some major improvements coming to /who along with its own UI. | |} ----